ABC Politicshttp://wondradio.com
Political News and Headlines From ABC News Radioen-us(c) ABC News RadioNetanyahu: United States Canít Let Iran Get Nuclear Bombhttp://wondradio.com/abc-politics/eddd021a23a7853840e8f3b344835e32
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:27:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/eddd021a23a7853840e8f3b344835e32ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- “In this deadly 'Game of Thrones,' there is no place for America or for Israel. No place for Christians, Jews or Muslims...So when it comes to Iran or ISIS the enemy of your enemy is your enemy."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a jam-packed joint meeting of Congress Tuesday, telling lawmakers that the United States cannot afford to allow Iran to construct a nuclear bomb.

Netanyahu thanked lawmakers for decades of support and said Israelis were protected last summer from Hamas rocket attacks "because this Capitol Dome helped build our Iron Dome." He then turned to Iran, warning that "Iran's regime poses a great threat not only to Israel but also to the peace of the entire world."

Netanyahu called on Congress not to lift restrictions on Iran until Iran stops its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East, stops supporting terrorism around the world, and stops threatening to annihilate Israel.

"For over a year we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal," he said. "Well this is a bad deal. A very bad deal. We're better off without it."

Netanyahu said Israel can defend itself and promised to act unilaterally against Iran if necessary, though he believes the U.S. would stand with Israel.

"As prime minister of Israel, I can promise you more than one thing: even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand," he said. "I know that Israel does not stand alone! I know that America stands with Israel!" he said. "My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope."

During his speech Tuesday, Netanyahu acknowledged his speech has been "subject of great controversy," but he said it was "never my intention" in accepting the invitation.

House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address Congress without consulting the White House or Congressional Democrats shortly after the president delivered his State of the Union address. Some Democrats complained that the invitation was inappropriate given the Israeli elections just two weeks away, and a deadline to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that looms at the end of the month.

Republicans however, contend that the invitation comes at a critical juncture in foreign policy.

“The prime minister’s address coincides with an increasingly aggressive Iranian campaign to expand its sphere of influence across the Middle East,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Tuesday. “It represents a threat to both our countries. It represents a threat to moderate Sunni allies, and it represents a threat to the international community at large. That’s why Prime Minister Netanyahu is here today.”

]]>ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- “In this deadly 'Game of Thrones,' there is no place for America or for Israel. No place for Christians, Jews or Muslims...So when it comes to Iran or ISIS the enemy of your enemy is your enemy."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a jam-packed joint meeting of Congress Tuesday, telling lawmakers that the United States cannot afford to allow Iran to construct a nuclear bomb.

Netanyahu thanked lawmakers for decades of support and said Israelis were protected last summer from Hamas rocket attacks "because this Capitol Dome helped build our Iron Dome." He then turned to Iran, warning that "Iran's regime poses a great threat not only to Israel but also to the peace of the entire world."

Netanyahu called on Congress not to lift restrictions on Iran until Iran stops its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East, stops supporting terrorism around the world, and stops threatening to annihilate Israel.

"For over a year we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal," he said. "Well this is a bad deal. A very bad deal. We're better off without it."

Netanyahu said Israel can defend itself and promised to act unilaterally against Iran if necessary, though he believes the U.S. would stand with Israel.

"As prime minister of Israel, I can promise you more than one thing: even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand," he said. "I know that Israel does not stand alone! I know that America stands with Israel!" he said. "My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope."

During his speech Tuesday, Netanyahu acknowledged his speech has been "subject of great controversy," but he said it was "never my intention" in accepting the invitation.

House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to address Congress without consulting the White House or Congressional Democrats shortly after the president delivered his State of the Union address. Some Democrats complained that the invitation was inappropriate given the Israeli elections just two weeks away, and a deadline to strike a nuclear deal with Iran that looms at the end of the month.

Republicans however, contend that the invitation comes at a critical juncture in foreign policy.

“The prime minister’s address coincides with an increasingly aggressive Iranian campaign to expand its sphere of influence across the Middle East,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Tuesday. “It represents a threat to both our countries. It represents a threat to moderate Sunni allies, and it represents a threat to the international community at large. That’s why Prime Minister Netanyahu is here today.”

]]>Former CIA Head David Petraeus to Plead Guiltyhttp://wondradio.com/abc-politics/2405fb95497ff19a491c273422b2bb14
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:16:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/2405fb95497ff19a491c273422b2bb14ISAF via Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Decorated war veteran and former CIA director David Petraeus has come to an agreement with federal prosecutors in which he would plead guilty to misdemeanor charges for mishandling classified information.

Specifically, the charges are improper retention of classified materials and obstruction of justice by allegedly making misleading statements to the FBI, sources familiar with the case told ABC News.

The charges stem, in part, from documents the former director allegedly provided to his mistress.

Following the agreement, the Justice Department issued a statement:

“Three documents – a criminal Information, a plea agreement, and a statement of facts – were filed today in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina’s Charlotte Division in the case of United States v. David Howell Petraeus. The criminal Information charges the defendant with one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. ... The plea agreement and corresponding statement of facts, both signed by the defendant, indicate that he will plead guilty to the one-count criminal Information."

Specifically, the charges are improper retention of classified materials and obstruction of justice by allegedly making misleading statements to the FBI, sources familiar with the case told ABC News.

The charges stem, in part, from documents the former director allegedly provided to his mistress.

Following the agreement, the Justice Department issued a statement:

“Three documents – a criminal Information, a plea agreement, and a statement of facts – were filed today in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina’s Charlotte Division in the case of United States v. David Howell Petraeus. The criminal Information charges the defendant with one count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. ... The plea agreement and corresponding statement of facts, both signed by the defendant, indicate that he will plead guilty to the one-count criminal Information."

The nine justices will hear arguments over whether it’s legal to give out the subsidies in 34 states where the federal government established and runs the insurance exchange, HealthCare.gov.

The debate centers on interpretation of a four-word phrase buried in the 2,000-page law that says financial aid is available through “exchanges established by the state.”

The stakes are high: About 7.5 million Americans have received subsidies to purchase health insurance coverage in those 34 states.

If the court strikes them down, the “vast majority” will be forced out of coverage almost immediately because their premiums will become prohibitively expensive, experts say.

"There could be chaos," said Abbe Gluck, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in health law.

An average American receiving Obamacare subsidies pays just $105 a month out of pocket for insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Take away the aid and the cost spikes to $373 a month – for many, a price out of reach.

Experts are also sounding alarm bells about a broader impact: the upending of individual insurance markets and a likely “death spiral.” Premiums would skyrocket for everyone in those 34 states, not just those who purchased Obamacare, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found.

And if you think the states, Congress or the Department of Health and Human Services could enact a quick, even temporary, fix, then think again. There has been little-to-no preparation for a court decision striking the subsidies down.

There will be just 25 days to look at those options after the court releases its opinion, which is expected in June, leaving precious little time for lawmakers and those relying on subsidized Obamacare insurance to act to come up with an alternative plan.

The nine justices will hear arguments over whether it’s legal to give out the subsidies in 34 states where the federal government established and runs the insurance exchange, HealthCare.gov.

The debate centers on interpretation of a four-word phrase buried in the 2,000-page law that says financial aid is available through “exchanges established by the state.”

The stakes are high: About 7.5 million Americans have received subsidies to purchase health insurance coverage in those 34 states.

If the court strikes them down, the “vast majority” will be forced out of coverage almost immediately because their premiums will become prohibitively expensive, experts say.

"There could be chaos," said Abbe Gluck, a Yale Law School professor who specializes in health law.

An average American receiving Obamacare subsidies pays just $105 a month out of pocket for insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Take away the aid and the cost spikes to $373 a month – for many, a price out of reach.

Experts are also sounding alarm bells about a broader impact: the upending of individual insurance markets and a likely “death spiral.” Premiums would skyrocket for everyone in those 34 states, not just those who purchased Obamacare, a study in the New England Journal of Medicine found.

And if you think the states, Congress or the Department of Health and Human Services could enact a quick, even temporary, fix, then think again. There has been little-to-no preparation for a court decision striking the subsidies down.

There will be just 25 days to look at those options after the court releases its opinion, which is expected in June, leaving precious little time for lawmakers and those relying on subsidized Obamacare insurance to act to come up with an alternative plan.

Clinton's team has confirmed that she used a personal email account for government business but maintained that it works within "both the letter and the spirit" of State Department rules, though the State Department, itself, has not commented on the matter.Did she have a government email account that she just didn't use?

The Times reported that she did not have an email account, which would have ended with a federal government domain -- in this case, state.gov.

Such emails are automatically stored on government servers and kept as federal records.What email account did she use instead?

While some guessed that she might be using a personalized email account at AOL or Hotmail, that was not the case.

Instead,The Washington Postreported, the domain "clintonemail.com" was registered the week before she was sworn in as secretary of state in 2009. Clinton's team has not confirmed that she used an email at that address.Is that legal?

There hasn't been enough information released yet to determine exactly what rules were broken, if any, but there are clear disclosure and security concerns.

Government email accounts have their messages automatically stored as part of the Federal Records Act, and while it's clear that Clinton's personal account would not have fallen under that umbrella, her team noted that much of her correspondence still was covered, as a result.

"For government business, she emailed them on their department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained," Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement.

However, as The Times noted, emails to accounts outside the U.S. government would not be covered by the same rules.Could that account have been hacked?

We don't know the extent of the security measures taken with her external account and whether they matched the measures taken by her colleagues who used government email accounts. Government accounts have their messages encrypted, for instance.Is she the first high-ranking government official to have done this?

According to her spokesman, no. He said that "secretaries of state before her" also used their own email accounts while "engaging with department officials." That response, however, does not say whether those secretaries of state used both government and private email accounts or just private email accounts like Clinton did, and it doesn't specify whether those secretaries of state were operating under earlier sets of rules governing government employees' email conduct.How was this discovered?

The New York Times reported that Clinton's use of a personal account was first discovered during a House committee's investigation into the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. However, the State Department apparently just handed over a selection of about 300 emails to the committee two weeks ago.

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Benghazi Select Committee, issued a statement Tuesday morning saying that it has been known "for several years that Secretary Clinton used her personal email account, apparently following the pattern of previous secretaries of state."

On top of that, anyone who received an email from her after she took over the State Department in 2009 would have recognized at the time that they were receiving an email from a non-state.gov address.

Will this be an issue in the 2016 race?

To quote another famous female politician, you betcha. Though Clinton has not yet announced her candidacy, her likely opponent, Jeb Bush, has already slammed her secretive move, saying that it lacked transparency.

Clinton's team has confirmed that she used a personal email account for government business but maintained that it works within "both the letter and the spirit" of State Department rules, though the State Department, itself, has not commented on the matter.Did she have a government email account that she just didn't use?

The Times reported that she did not have an email account, which would have ended with a federal government domain -- in this case, state.gov.

Such emails are automatically stored on government servers and kept as federal records.What email account did she use instead?

While some guessed that she might be using a personalized email account at AOL or Hotmail, that was not the case.

Instead,The Washington Postreported, the domain "clintonemail.com" was registered the week before she was sworn in as secretary of state in 2009. Clinton's team has not confirmed that she used an email at that address.Is that legal?

There hasn't been enough information released yet to determine exactly what rules were broken, if any, but there are clear disclosure and security concerns.

Government email accounts have their messages automatically stored as part of the Federal Records Act, and while it's clear that Clinton's personal account would not have fallen under that umbrella, her team noted that much of her correspondence still was covered, as a result.

"For government business, she emailed them on their department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained," Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement.

However, as The Times noted, emails to accounts outside the U.S. government would not be covered by the same rules.Could that account have been hacked?

We don't know the extent of the security measures taken with her external account and whether they matched the measures taken by her colleagues who used government email accounts. Government accounts have their messages encrypted, for instance.Is she the first high-ranking government official to have done this?

According to her spokesman, no. He said that "secretaries of state before her" also used their own email accounts while "engaging with department officials." That response, however, does not say whether those secretaries of state used both government and private email accounts or just private email accounts like Clinton did, and it doesn't specify whether those secretaries of state were operating under earlier sets of rules governing government employees' email conduct.How was this discovered?

The New York Times reported that Clinton's use of a personal account was first discovered during a House committee's investigation into the 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. However, the State Department apparently just handed over a selection of about 300 emails to the committee two weeks ago.

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the Benghazi Select Committee, issued a statement Tuesday morning saying that it has been known "for several years that Secretary Clinton used her personal email account, apparently following the pattern of previous secretaries of state."

On top of that, anyone who received an email from her after she took over the State Department in 2009 would have recognized at the time that they were receiving an email from a non-state.gov address.

Will this be an issue in the 2016 race?

To quote another famous female politician, you betcha. Though Clinton has not yet announced her candidacy, her likely opponent, Jeb Bush, has already slammed her secretive move, saying that it lacked transparency.

]]>Report: Hillary Clinton's Personal Email Use May Have Violated Federal Requirementshttp://wondradio.com/abc-politics/10eb3e24a5db46cce46b0a160e571743
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:51:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/10eb3e24a5db46cce46b0a160e571743Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- Hillary Clinton used a personal email account exclusively while serving as secretary of state, and may have violated federal requirements,The New York Times reported late Monday. According to the Times, Clinton did not have a government email address during her four years at the State Department, and her aids took no action to preserve her emails – which is required by law under the Federal Records Act.

These new revelations raise questions about transparency, legality, and certainly security. It is not clear whether any encryption protection existed on her private email account, as is required on government emails.

Clinton's personal spokesman, Nick Merrill, issued a statement in response to the Times report.

"Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained. When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes," the statement reads.

"Both the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved. As a result of State¹s request for our help to make sure they in fact were, that is what happened here. As the Department stated, it is in the process of updating its record preservation policies to bring them in line with its retention responsibilities."

In an effort to comply with federal record-keeping laws, aides to the former secretary of state turned over 55,000 emails to the State Department two months ago, according to the Times report.

“The State Department has long had access to a wide array of Secretary Clinton’s records – including emails between her and Department officials with state.gov accounts. Last year, the Department sent a letter to representatives of former secretaries of state requesting they submit any records in their possession for proper preservation as part of our effort to continually improve our records preservation and management,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf told ABC News in a statement early Tuesday. “In response to our request, Secretary Clinton provided the Department with emails spanning her time at the Department. After the State Department reviewed those emails, last month the State Department produced about 300 emails responsive to recent requests from the Select Committee.”

“From the moment that the Select Committee was created, the State Department has been proactively and consistently engaged in responding to the Committee’s many requests in a timely manner, providing more than 40,000 pages of documents, scheduling more than 20 transcribed interviews and participating in several briefings and each of the Committee’s hearings," the statement continued.

The State Department also says they are in the process of updating their records preservation policies to bring them up to speed with 2013 National Archives and Records Administration guidance. “These steps include regularly archiving all of Secretary Kerry’s emails to ensure that we are capturing all federal records,” Harf said.

Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account.

The matter is expected to become a campaign issue. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a potential 2016 candidate for the White House, released more than 275,000 emails last month from his time as governor in the name of “transparency.” Bush tweeted late Monday “Transparency matters. Unclassified @HillaryClinton emails should be released. You can see mine, here. Jebbushemails.com.”

Senior administration officials declined to comment on whether any cabinet member or senior staffer operated without a government email address during the Obama administration. They also would not say whether White House officials corresponded with Clinton on her private email address on official business, or whether there were concerns about emailing a non-governmental account.

]]>Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images(NEW YORK) -- Hillary Clinton used a personal email account exclusively while serving as secretary of state, and may have violated federal requirements,The New York Times reported late Monday. According to the Times, Clinton did not have a government email address during her four years at the State Department, and her aids took no action to preserve her emails – which is required by law under the Federal Records Act.

These new revelations raise questions about transparency, legality, and certainly security. It is not clear whether any encryption protection existed on her private email account, as is required on government emails.

Clinton's personal spokesman, Nick Merrill, issued a statement in response to the Times report.

"Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained. When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring their emails were in fact retained, we immediately said yes," the statement reads.

"Both the letter and spirit of the rules permitted State Department officials to use non-government email, as long as appropriate records were preserved. As a result of State¹s request for our help to make sure they in fact were, that is what happened here. As the Department stated, it is in the process of updating its record preservation policies to bring them in line with its retention responsibilities."

In an effort to comply with federal record-keeping laws, aides to the former secretary of state turned over 55,000 emails to the State Department two months ago, according to the Times report.

“The State Department has long had access to a wide array of Secretary Clinton’s records – including emails between her and Department officials with state.gov accounts. Last year, the Department sent a letter to representatives of former secretaries of state requesting they submit any records in their possession for proper preservation as part of our effort to continually improve our records preservation and management,” State Department Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf told ABC News in a statement early Tuesday. “In response to our request, Secretary Clinton provided the Department with emails spanning her time at the Department. After the State Department reviewed those emails, last month the State Department produced about 300 emails responsive to recent requests from the Select Committee.”

“From the moment that the Select Committee was created, the State Department has been proactively and consistently engaged in responding to the Committee’s many requests in a timely manner, providing more than 40,000 pages of documents, scheduling more than 20 transcribed interviews and participating in several briefings and each of the Committee’s hearings," the statement continued.

The State Department also says they are in the process of updating their records preservation policies to bring them up to speed with 2013 National Archives and Records Administration guidance. “These steps include regularly archiving all of Secretary Kerry’s emails to ensure that we are capturing all federal records,” Harf said.

Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account.

The matter is expected to become a campaign issue. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, a potential 2016 candidate for the White House, released more than 275,000 emails last month from his time as governor in the name of “transparency.” Bush tweeted late Monday “Transparency matters. Unclassified @HillaryClinton emails should be released. You can see mine, here. Jebbushemails.com.”

Senior administration officials declined to comment on whether any cabinet member or senior staffer operated without a government email address during the Obama administration. They also would not say whether White House officials corresponded with Clinton on her private email address on official business, or whether there were concerns about emailing a non-governmental account.

]]>White House Steps Up Pressure on Netanyahu over Speech to Congresshttp://wondradio.com/abc-politics/0ef4b28754f095fe38aa2ca49c19dd93
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 05:27:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/0ef4b28754f095fe38aa2ca49c19dd93iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- In the lead-up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial speech before a joint session of Congress Tuesday, White House officials continued to point to what they see as politically divisive and diplomatically damaging theater.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president probably won’t even watch the speech. “I haven’t looked at the president’s schedule for tomorrow,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday. “I doubt that he will spend his whole time watching the speech.”

Netanyahu was invited by House Republican leadership to address a joint session of Congress Tuesday, where he will speak out against President Obama’s plan to seek a nuclear weapons deal with Iran. The White House has said the partisanship resulting from the invitation would be “destructive” to the U.S./Israeli relationship.

Earnest warned Netanyahu not to divulge any top secret information about the negotiations that the U.S. may have shared with Israelis, who have received detailed briefings on the negotiations. “Releasing that information would betray the trust that exists between two allies,” Earnest said. He accused Israel of trying to “cherry pick” negative pieces of information gleaned from those briefings in an attempt to undermine the process.

Speaking Monday at a conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by the largest U.S. pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, Netanyahu insisted his speech “is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama” and that the Israeli alliance with the U.S. is stronger than ever. “Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of my address to Congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.”

Speaking at that same conference later in the day, National Security Advisor Susan Rice said abandoning the talks in favor of immediate sanctions would not stop Iran from producing weapons. Sanctions have not stopped Iran in the past, she said.

And on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said the negotiations with Iran have actually benefited Israel. “Israel is safer today because of the interim agreement that we created,” he said on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “The 20 percent enriched uranium has been reduced to zero. We have stopped the centrifuge production. We are inspecting inside of their facilities. We have stopped the Arak plutonium reactor in its tracks.”

Kerry warned that Netanyahu’s speech runs the risk of becoming a “political football.” Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- and the administration’s choice to speak directly before Netanyahu at AIPAC -- also warned about playing politics. “This partnership should never be politicized,” Power said. “The bond between the United States and Israel is still a national commitment. It should never be a partisan matter."

Many Republicans and some Democrats support further sanctions on Iran before any potential deal on nuclear weapons is made. More economic sanctions would mostly likely put an end to negotiations, which the State Department is trying to complete before the deadline this summer. Secretary Kerry is in Geneva, Switzerland, this week trying to keep the negotiations alive.

]]>iStock/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- In the lead-up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s controversial speech before a joint session of Congress Tuesday, White House officials continued to point to what they see as politically divisive and diplomatically damaging theater.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president probably won’t even watch the speech. “I haven’t looked at the president’s schedule for tomorrow,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday. “I doubt that he will spend his whole time watching the speech.”

Netanyahu was invited by House Republican leadership to address a joint session of Congress Tuesday, where he will speak out against President Obama’s plan to seek a nuclear weapons deal with Iran. The White House has said the partisanship resulting from the invitation would be “destructive” to the U.S./Israeli relationship.

Earnest warned Netanyahu not to divulge any top secret information about the negotiations that the U.S. may have shared with Israelis, who have received detailed briefings on the negotiations. “Releasing that information would betray the trust that exists between two allies,” Earnest said. He accused Israel of trying to “cherry pick” negative pieces of information gleaned from those briefings in an attempt to undermine the process.

Speaking Monday at a conference in Washington, D.C., hosted by the largest U.S. pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, Netanyahu insisted his speech “is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama” and that the Israeli alliance with the U.S. is stronger than ever. “Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of my address to Congress tomorrow is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.”

Speaking at that same conference later in the day, National Security Advisor Susan Rice said abandoning the talks in favor of immediate sanctions would not stop Iran from producing weapons. Sanctions have not stopped Iran in the past, she said.

And on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said the negotiations with Iran have actually benefited Israel. “Israel is safer today because of the interim agreement that we created,” he said on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. “The 20 percent enriched uranium has been reduced to zero. We have stopped the centrifuge production. We are inspecting inside of their facilities. We have stopped the Arak plutonium reactor in its tracks.”

Kerry warned that Netanyahu’s speech runs the risk of becoming a “political football.” Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations -- and the administration’s choice to speak directly before Netanyahu at AIPAC -- also warned about playing politics. “This partnership should never be politicized,” Power said. “The bond between the United States and Israel is still a national commitment. It should never be a partisan matter."

Many Republicans and some Democrats support further sanctions on Iran before any potential deal on nuclear weapons is made. More economic sanctions would mostly likely put an end to negotiations, which the State Department is trying to complete before the deadline this summer. Secretary Kerry is in Geneva, Switzerland, this week trying to keep the negotiations alive.

]]>Most Young Republicans Favor Marijuana Legalizationhttp://wondradio.com/abc-politics/2458dbb511e7d6ab4441cfc1c2640815
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 04:47:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/2458dbb511e7d6ab4441cfc1c2640815Hemera/Thinkstock(WASHINGTON) -- Although the Republican Party as a whole has not been at the forefront of supporting marijuana legalization, younger people who identify themselves with the GOP may force traditionalists to change their views.

A Pew Research Center survey says that close to two-thirds of people ages 18-to-34 who claim to be Republican back legalizing the possession and sale of pot while 47 percent of those 35-to-50 feel the same way.

As expected, a higher number of younger Democrats are in favor of doing away with criminal penalties for owning or selling marijuana: 77 percent in the 18-to-34 age group and 61 percent of those 35-to-50.

Nonetheless, Republicans running for president and other state and local offices are cognizant of the shift in attitudes about pot as they vie for the votes of young people, who have generally sided with Democrats in more recent elections.

Interestingly, Pew says that more liberal opinions about marijuana among millennials are in synch with their growing acceptance of same-sex marriage. Just over six in ten Americans in that generation who identify themselves as Republican also back the rights of gays and lesbians to wed legally.

A Pew Research Center survey says that close to two-thirds of people ages 18-to-34 who claim to be Republican back legalizing the possession and sale of pot while 47 percent of those 35-to-50 feel the same way.

As expected, a higher number of younger Democrats are in favor of doing away with criminal penalties for owning or selling marijuana: 77 percent in the 18-to-34 age group and 61 percent of those 35-to-50.

Nonetheless, Republicans running for president and other state and local offices are cognizant of the shift in attitudes about pot as they vie for the votes of young people, who have generally sided with Democrats in more recent elections.

Interestingly, Pew says that more liberal opinions about marijuana among millennials are in synch with their growing acceptance of same-sex marriage. Just over six in ten Americans in that generation who identify themselves as Republican also back the rights of gays and lesbians to wed legally.

That enduring relationship has been tested somewhat in recent weeks, with Democrats griping about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Tuesday speech before a joint session of Congress. Nonetheless, Rice noted, "the relationship between the United States and the State of Israel is not a partnership between individual leaders or political parties." That relationship, she noted, "has deepened and grown through different presidents and prime ministers for nearly 70 years."

Netanyahu has spoken out in recent weeks against a deal with Iran that would leave them with the capability to one day produce a nuclear weapon.

"I want to be very clear," Rice said Monday about the ongoing negotiations with Iran, "a bad deal is worse than no deal." What makes a good deal? Rice says "a good deal is one that would invariably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a single nuclear weapon."

As far as how those negotiations are proceeding, Rice said that "significant gaps remain between the international community and Iran." She also echoed comments made by President Obama that "we are keeping all options on the table to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

]]>Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Monday, National Security Adviser Susan Rice called the relationship between America and Israel an "alliance...rooted in the unbreakable friendship between our two peoples."

That enduring relationship has been tested somewhat in recent weeks, with Democrats griping about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Tuesday speech before a joint session of Congress. Nonetheless, Rice noted, "the relationship between the United States and the State of Israel is not a partnership between individual leaders or political parties." That relationship, she noted, "has deepened and grown through different presidents and prime ministers for nearly 70 years."

Netanyahu has spoken out in recent weeks against a deal with Iran that would leave them with the capability to one day produce a nuclear weapon.

"I want to be very clear," Rice said Monday about the ongoing negotiations with Iran, "a bad deal is worse than no deal." What makes a good deal? Rice says "a good deal is one that would invariably cut off every pathway for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a single nuclear weapon."

As far as how those negotiations are proceeding, Rice said that "significant gaps remain between the international community and Iran." She also echoed comments made by President Obama that "we are keeping all options on the table to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon."

]]>Director of National Intelligence on Killing of Putin Critic: 'History Has Been We Never Do Find Out'http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/2310d6135e13aa480f090d124c7599db
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 19:53:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/2310d6135e13aa480f090d124c7599dbPhoto by Bryan Thomas/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- In remarks made to the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seemed to question the investigation launched by the Russian government into the death of Boris Nemtsov, an opponent to Russian President Vladimir Putin, last week.

Asked about the possibility that Putin and his allies had perpetrated the killing, Clapper said that such talk was "an obvious theory." The DNI noted that "there are some Russian Kremlin officials who have suggested we did it, just to create hate and discontent in the political fabric of Russia."

Clapper said U.S. intelligence did not have any insight into who committed the murder. "I would venture the history has been we never do find out," he said, adding, "I'm sure that Putin himself is going to investigate."

]]>Photo by Bryan Thomas/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- In remarks made to the Council on Foreign Relations on Monday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper seemed to question the investigation launched by the Russian government into the death of Boris Nemtsov, an opponent to Russian President Vladimir Putin, last week.

Asked about the possibility that Putin and his allies had perpetrated the killing, Clapper said that such talk was "an obvious theory." The DNI noted that "there are some Russian Kremlin officials who have suggested we did it, just to create hate and discontent in the political fabric of Russia."

Clapper said U.S. intelligence did not have any insight into who committed the murder. "I would venture the history has been we never do find out," he said, adding, "I'm sure that Putin himself is going to investigate."

]]>On Iran, a Question of Whether Obama and Netanyahu Really Have the Same Goalhttp://wondradio.com/abc-politics/dca4786d8d383d1b4d6968ba4ce0eded
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 18:45:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/dca4786d8d383d1b4d6968ba4ce0ededPhoto by Win McNamee/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- When it comes to nuclear negotiations with Iran, President Obama has said America's goal is to prevent Iran from ever producing a nuclear weapon, while Israel has described a different one: denying Iran the capability of ever getting there.

"Our goal here is to be able to verify that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon," Obama said after a meeting with the emir of Qatar last week.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a different take.

"We must prevent Iran from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons. And I want to reiterate that point. Not just to prevent them from having the weapon, but to prevent them from having the capacity to make the weapon," Netanyahu said last year when he spoke at the 2014 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington.

So do the U.S. and Israel really want the same thing?

"I guess you could make the case that there is [a difference in goals]. I'm happy for someone else to do that if they would like to," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

"No one else has laid out a strategy for how to accomplish what apparently the prime minister has laid out as his goal. He hasn't even laid out a strategy for how to accomplish his goal," Earnest said.

Here's Earnest's full response, in which he defended the White House's aims in pursuing the nuclear talks that have sparked so much controversy (transcript via FedNews):

KARL: Actually, the Israeli prime minister has articulated a different goal than what you did at this briefing. You said that the United States is committed to a position where Iran will never acquire a nuclear weapon. What Bibi Netanyahu said today, and what he's been saying all along is the goal, is to make sure Iran doesn't get the capability to build a nuclear weapon.

EARNEST: Mm-hmm.

KARL: Which he says, and is, a different view. So, what do you say about his view, that the whole point of this effort is to ensure not just that Iran doesn't get a weapon, but that Iran doesn't get the ability to build a weapon?

EARNEST: Well, I assume that the -- the prime minister will have an opportunity to elaborate on what he means when he says the ability to acquire a nuclear weapon.

KARL: I can tell you what he means.

EARNEST: OK.

KARL: He's referring to an enrichment capability. He's also talked about the fact that they have a ballistic missile program that would enable a delivery system for a nuclear weapon. That's what he's talking about. When Iran has the ability to produce highly enriched uranium, it is the fuel to make a nuclear bomb. He believes that's a threat to Israel's survival because it puts them on a path to getting or to building a bomb.

EARNEST: And has he laid out a strategy for how to prevent them from -- how to accomplish the goal that he has laid out? I guess the point is, you don't have to speak for him any longer. The point is, he has not -- he has not laid out that strategy. The president has laid out a clear strategy that we are working to achieve that would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And that is a clearly stated foreign policy goal and it is a priority that this president has made because it's in the clear national security interest of the United States. It also happens to be in the national security interests of our closest ally in the region, Israel.

KARL: So is he correct, though, to say that your goal, then, is not to prevent Iran from getting the capability to build a bomb. It's to prevent them from getting a bomb.

EARNEST: Well, the... [CROSSTALK]

EARNEST: Well, if he says that there's a difference there, he's allowed to do that. The point that I'm making...

KARL: You don't think there's a difference between those two positions?

EARNEST: Well, I guess you could make the case that there is one. I'm happy for someone else to do that if they would like to. The point is that we believe -- the president has made a strategic decision about what he believes is clearly in the best interests of the United States. And it happens to be in the best interests of Israel. No one else has laid out a strategy for how to accomplish what apparently the prime minister has laid out as his goal. He hasn't even laid out a strategy for how to accomplish his goal. And by the way, I'm not even sure that the military option that some people consider to be an alternative to the president's strategy would even accomplish his goal because it would require not just a detailed destruction of Iran's infrastructure, but it also would require the removal of knowledge that Iran has already obtained.

So, the fact is the goal that the president has set out that would ensure that -- or that is consistent with our national security imperatives here in this country, is to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. And the best way for us to do this is at the negotiating table. Those negotiations are underway even as we speak. But the other thing that I have not mentioned so far in this briefing that's important for everybody to realize is it continues to be the case that our likelihood of success when it comes to reaching a deal in the context of these negotiations is only at best 50-50. There are difficult decisions that need to be made by the Iranian government in terms of their willingness to sign onto this agreement. And this president has made clear that he's not going to sign a bad deal.

]]>Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- When it comes to nuclear negotiations with Iran, President Obama has said America's goal is to prevent Iran from ever producing a nuclear weapon, while Israel has described a different one: denying Iran the capability of ever getting there.

"Our goal here is to be able to verify that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon," Obama said after a meeting with the emir of Qatar last week.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a different take.

"We must prevent Iran from having the capability to produce nuclear weapons. And I want to reiterate that point. Not just to prevent them from having the weapon, but to prevent them from having the capacity to make the weapon," Netanyahu said last year when he spoke at the 2014 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington.

So do the U.S. and Israel really want the same thing?

"I guess you could make the case that there is [a difference in goals]. I'm happy for someone else to do that if they would like to," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

"No one else has laid out a strategy for how to accomplish what apparently the prime minister has laid out as his goal. He hasn't even laid out a strategy for how to accomplish his goal," Earnest said.

Here's Earnest's full response, in which he defended the White House's aims in pursuing the nuclear talks that have sparked so much controversy (transcript via FedNews):

KARL: Actually, the Israeli prime minister has articulated a different goal than what you did at this briefing. You said that the United States is committed to a position where Iran will never acquire a nuclear weapon. What Bibi Netanyahu said today, and what he's been saying all along is the goal, is to make sure Iran doesn't get the capability to build a nuclear weapon.

EARNEST: Mm-hmm.

KARL: Which he says, and is, a different view. So, what do you say about his view, that the whole point of this effort is to ensure not just that Iran doesn't get a weapon, but that Iran doesn't get the ability to build a weapon?

EARNEST: Well, I assume that the -- the prime minister will have an opportunity to elaborate on what he means when he says the ability to acquire a nuclear weapon.

KARL: I can tell you what he means.

EARNEST: OK.

KARL: He's referring to an enrichment capability. He's also talked about the fact that they have a ballistic missile program that would enable a delivery system for a nuclear weapon. That's what he's talking about. When Iran has the ability to produce highly enriched uranium, it is the fuel to make a nuclear bomb. He believes that's a threat to Israel's survival because it puts them on a path to getting or to building a bomb.

EARNEST: And has he laid out a strategy for how to prevent them from -- how to accomplish the goal that he has laid out? I guess the point is, you don't have to speak for him any longer. The point is, he has not -- he has not laid out that strategy. The president has laid out a clear strategy that we are working to achieve that would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And that is a clearly stated foreign policy goal and it is a priority that this president has made because it's in the clear national security interest of the United States. It also happens to be in the national security interests of our closest ally in the region, Israel.

KARL: So is he correct, though, to say that your goal, then, is not to prevent Iran from getting the capability to build a bomb. It's to prevent them from getting a bomb.

EARNEST: Well, the... [CROSSTALK]

EARNEST: Well, if he says that there's a difference there, he's allowed to do that. The point that I'm making...

KARL: You don't think there's a difference between those two positions?

EARNEST: Well, I guess you could make the case that there is one. I'm happy for someone else to do that if they would like to. The point is that we believe -- the president has made a strategic decision about what he believes is clearly in the best interests of the United States. And it happens to be in the best interests of Israel. No one else has laid out a strategy for how to accomplish what apparently the prime minister has laid out as his goal. He hasn't even laid out a strategy for how to accomplish his goal. And by the way, I'm not even sure that the military option that some people consider to be an alternative to the president's strategy would even accomplish his goal because it would require not just a detailed destruction of Iran's infrastructure, but it also would require the removal of knowledge that Iran has already obtained.

So, the fact is the goal that the president has set out that would ensure that -- or that is consistent with our national security imperatives here in this country, is to ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. And the best way for us to do this is at the negotiating table. Those negotiations are underway even as we speak. But the other thing that I have not mentioned so far in this briefing that's important for everybody to realize is it continues to be the case that our likelihood of success when it comes to reaching a deal in the context of these negotiations is only at best 50-50. There are difficult decisions that need to be made by the Iranian government in terms of their willingness to sign onto this agreement. And this president has made clear that he's not going to sign a bad deal.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said he’d probably go with one of his favorite tunes, “Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor.

“It’s about an underdog taking on big challenges,” Jindal said in an interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I think we need a candidate who’s going to fight for us, fight for our principles, and have fun doing it.”

Former neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, on the other hand, chose an American classic: “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

Former 2012 candidate Rick Santorum said it would be hard to beat his previous campaign song from 2012, “Game On.” The tune was written and performed by two teenage girls who were inspired by a speech Santorum gave at the Iowa caucuses.

“I’m still partial to that,” the former senator from Pennsylvania said. “That’s a pretty cool little song.”

Business mogul Donald Trump said he’d probably go with the song “Dream,” but clarified that it wouldn’t be the theme of his campaign. “My campaign theme would be ‘Make America great again,’ because that’s what we have to do,” Trump said.

And Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina said she has yet to think about what her campaign song would be. “I don’t have anything in mind yet,” she said.

]]>ABC News(WASHINGTON) -- Though none of the potential 2016 candidates has yet to formally announce a presidential campaign, each contender has likely spent plenty of time thinking about what their campaign platforms will look like.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said he’d probably go with one of his favorite tunes, “Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor.

“It’s about an underdog taking on big challenges,” Jindal said in an interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I think we need a candidate who’s going to fight for us, fight for our principles, and have fun doing it.”

Former neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, on the other hand, chose an American classic: “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

Former 2012 candidate Rick Santorum said it would be hard to beat his previous campaign song from 2012, “Game On.” The tune was written and performed by two teenage girls who were inspired by a speech Santorum gave at the Iowa caucuses.

“I’m still partial to that,” the former senator from Pennsylvania said. “That’s a pretty cool little song.”

Business mogul Donald Trump said he’d probably go with the song “Dream,” but clarified that it wouldn’t be the theme of his campaign. “My campaign theme would be ‘Make America great again,’ because that’s what we have to do,” Trump said.

And Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina said she has yet to think about what her campaign song would be. “I don’t have anything in mind yet,” she said.

]]>Obama Unlikely to Watch Netanyahu Speech Tuesdayhttp://wondradio.com/abc-politics/2073008c24bf0945cd4400ca189fbc17
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 15:24:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/2073008c24bf0945cd4400ca189fbc17Uriel Sinai/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Amid frustration with a speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to give to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Obama is unlikely to watch, the White House says.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said as much during Monday's press briefing. "I haven't looked at the president's schedule for tomorrow," Earnest admitted, while saying that he "[doubts] he will want to spend his whole time watching the speech."

Netanyahu was invited to give the speech by House Speaker John Boehner, without consulting with the administration. That fact bothered some Democrats, who also have voiced concern about the speech coming so near Netanyahu's bid for reelection.

Netanyahu has voiced concerns over ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, a topic on which Earnest warned against releasing information. "Releasing that information would betray the trust that exists between two allies," he said Monday.

Earnest noted that the White House has kept Israel apprised of the Iran negotiations, and that the administration was not particularly happy with the instances in which Israeli officials have chosen to "cherry pick" tidbits of information to criticize the U.S. stance.

]]>Uriel Sinai/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- Amid frustration with a speech that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is scheduled to give to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, President Obama is unlikely to watch, the White House says.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said as much during Monday's press briefing. "I haven't looked at the president's schedule for tomorrow," Earnest admitted, while saying that he "[doubts] he will want to spend his whole time watching the speech."

Netanyahu was invited to give the speech by House Speaker John Boehner, without consulting with the administration. That fact bothered some Democrats, who also have voiced concern about the speech coming so near Netanyahu's bid for reelection.

Netanyahu has voiced concerns over ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran, a topic on which Earnest warned against releasing information. "Releasing that information would betray the trust that exists between two allies," he said Monday.

Earnest noted that the White House has kept Israel apprised of the Iran negotiations, and that the administration was not particularly happy with the instances in which Israeli officials have chosen to "cherry pick" tidbits of information to criticize the U.S. stance.

]]>Obama: Now Is the Time to Change Policinghttp://wondradio.com/abc-politics/87a375647b61229066ff02b0dc84cd24
Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:44:00 -0600http://wondradio.com/abc-politics/87a375647b61229066ff02b0dc84cd24Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post(WASHINGTON) -- Receiving a report Monday from his post-Ferguson, Missouri task force on policing, President Obama said now is the time to make changes in law enforcement practices.

“A lot of our work is going to involve local police chiefs, local elected officials, states recognizing that the moment is now for us to make these changes,” Obama said, appearing briefly with his Task Force on 21st Century Policing earlier Monday.

“We have a greater opportunity, coming out of some great conflict and tragedy, to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations so that everybody feels safer,” he said.

The president noted a need for more data -- specifically on how often police shootings occur.

“We do not have a good sense…of how frequently there may be interactions with police and community members that result in death, result in a shooting,” Obama said.

]]>Jahi Chikwendiu/The Washington Post(WASHINGTON) -- Receiving a report Monday from his post-Ferguson, Missouri task force on policing, President Obama said now is the time to make changes in law enforcement practices.

“A lot of our work is going to involve local police chiefs, local elected officials, states recognizing that the moment is now for us to make these changes,” Obama said, appearing briefly with his Task Force on 21st Century Policing earlier Monday.

“We have a greater opportunity, coming out of some great conflict and tragedy, to really transform how we think about community law enforcement relations so that everybody feels safer,” he said.

The president noted a need for more data -- specifically on how often police shootings occur.

“We do not have a good sense…of how frequently there may be interactions with police and community members that result in death, result in a shooting,” Obama said.

In a recent interview with the Philadelphia Daily News, the artist who painted the official portrait of President Bill Clinton that hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., revealed a surprise -- the portrait “subtly” incorporated Monica Lewinsky.

Artist Nelson Shanks told the newspaper that the shadow on the left side of the portrait was cast by a mannequin in a blue dress -- a nod to the president’s affair with his 22-year-old intern.

Shanks, who described Clinton as “the most famous liar of all time,” told the Philadelphia Daily News that the shadow represents a metaphorical “shadow on the office he held.”

Shanks painted the portrait while standing in the Oval Office.

He says he placed a mannequin in a blue dress to cast a shadow on the mantle while he was painting. However, the mannequin and the president were never in the room at the same time, he noted.

According to Shanks, the Clintons are pressuring the National Portrait Gallery to remove the painting. However, a museum spokesperson told ABC News that they have not received any requests from the Clintons to remove the portrait.

The portrait is currently not on display, but it is in the museum’s gallery of collection.

The portrait originally stirred controversy when it was released in 2006 for the notable absence of a wedding ring on the president’s hand.

Shanks did not immediately respond to request for comment from ABC News.

]]>Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images(PHILADELPHIA) -- Here's one issue the Clintons may -- or may not -- want to brush off.

In a recent interview with the Philadelphia Daily News, the artist who painted the official portrait of President Bill Clinton that hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C., revealed a surprise -- the portrait “subtly” incorporated Monica Lewinsky.

Artist Nelson Shanks told the newspaper that the shadow on the left side of the portrait was cast by a mannequin in a blue dress -- a nod to the president’s affair with his 22-year-old intern.

Shanks, who described Clinton as “the most famous liar of all time,” told the Philadelphia Daily News that the shadow represents a metaphorical “shadow on the office he held.”

Shanks painted the portrait while standing in the Oval Office.

He says he placed a mannequin in a blue dress to cast a shadow on the mantle while he was painting. However, the mannequin and the president were never in the room at the same time, he noted.

According to Shanks, the Clintons are pressuring the National Portrait Gallery to remove the painting. However, a museum spokesperson told ABC News that they have not received any requests from the Clintons to remove the portrait.

The portrait is currently not on display, but it is in the museum’s gallery of collection.

The portrait originally stirred controversy when it was released in 2006 for the notable absence of a wedding ring on the president’s hand.

Shanks did not immediately respond to request for comment from ABC News.

Mikulski, who was first elected to the Senate in 1986, said she made the decision to fight for the people of Maryland instead of campaigning for herself another time around.

"I'm gonna be around. I'm Senator Barb,” Mikulski, 78, said at a news conference in Baltimore Monday. “I don’t want to spend my time campaigning for me. I want to campaign for the people.”

Here’s a look at some of the things you might not know about the storied career of the senator known to many as “Senator Barb”:

DEAN OF THE WOMEN SENATORS

As the longest serving female senator, Mikulski is known as the dean of the women senators. She often organizes bipartisan gatherings for the female senators and acts as a mentor for them.

In January, she hosted a meet and greet for the two new female senators -- Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.

GIRL SCOUT

Mikulski is a proud Girl Scout and often celebrates the group’s anniversary with speeches on the Senate floor.

"If you noticed I'm dressed in green today, and I also have on a Girl Scout pin. Don't I look like a little Girl Scout standing here?” Mikulski said last year as she celebrated the 102nd anniversary of the group. “I feel like a Girl Scout because I was a Girl Scout, and once a Girl Scout, always a Girl Scout!”

"I believe the values I learned as a Girl Scout were the lessons of a lifetime. And quite frankly, if I can live up to the Girl Scout law today, I think I'll be a pretty good Senator,” she said. “So hats off to Girl Scouts everywhere, a big thanks to the leaders who do it, and let's eat those cookies -- even if you're on a different kind of program than they're often called for!"

SOCIAL WORKER

Mikulski started her career as a social worker, helping at risk children and seniors in Baltimore. Her foray into activism came when she campaigned against plans to build a highway through two Baltimore communities.

She started in politics with a seat on the Baltimore City Council. She then served in the House of Representatives for 10 years before becoming a senator in 1986.

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS

Mikulski was the first woman to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, the powerful committee responsible for funding government agencies and departments. She chaired the committee from 2012 until this January when Republicans won control of the Senate.

EQUAL PAY

Mikulski has long been a champion for equal rights, specifically when it comes for equal pay for women. She has introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to try to put an end to disparity between women and men.

CRAB CAKE AFICIONADO

Mikulski cites crab cakes as her ideal meal and has a killer recipe handed down from her mother. But don’t worry -- it’s not a family secret. Mikulski spreads the crab cake love and has posted the recipe on her website.

"When I’m not eating delicious crab cakes, I follow what I call a heart healthy diet, which isn’t always easy,” she wrote on her website. “I like parsley, but I like pizza better.”

THE 4'11" SENATOR

Mikulski is quite small compared to some of her Senate colleagues at 4 feet and 11 inches tall. She reportedly once described herself as a “little stealth rocket, a heat-seeking missile, under everybody's radar."

Though small in stature, she is well known as one of the most feisty lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

]]>United States Senate(BALTIMORE) -- Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., the longest-serving woman in Congressional history, announced on Monday that she will retire.

Mikulski, who was first elected to the Senate in 1986, said she made the decision to fight for the people of Maryland instead of campaigning for herself another time around.

"I'm gonna be around. I'm Senator Barb,” Mikulski, 78, said at a news conference in Baltimore Monday. “I don’t want to spend my time campaigning for me. I want to campaign for the people.”

Here’s a look at some of the things you might not know about the storied career of the senator known to many as “Senator Barb”:

DEAN OF THE WOMEN SENATORS

As the longest serving female senator, Mikulski is known as the dean of the women senators. She often organizes bipartisan gatherings for the female senators and acts as a mentor for them.

In January, she hosted a meet and greet for the two new female senators -- Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.

GIRL SCOUT

Mikulski is a proud Girl Scout and often celebrates the group’s anniversary with speeches on the Senate floor.

"If you noticed I'm dressed in green today, and I also have on a Girl Scout pin. Don't I look like a little Girl Scout standing here?” Mikulski said last year as she celebrated the 102nd anniversary of the group. “I feel like a Girl Scout because I was a Girl Scout, and once a Girl Scout, always a Girl Scout!”

"I believe the values I learned as a Girl Scout were the lessons of a lifetime. And quite frankly, if I can live up to the Girl Scout law today, I think I'll be a pretty good Senator,” she said. “So hats off to Girl Scouts everywhere, a big thanks to the leaders who do it, and let's eat those cookies -- even if you're on a different kind of program than they're often called for!"

SOCIAL WORKER

Mikulski started her career as a social worker, helping at risk children and seniors in Baltimore. Her foray into activism came when she campaigned against plans to build a highway through two Baltimore communities.

She started in politics with a seat on the Baltimore City Council. She then served in the House of Representatives for 10 years before becoming a senator in 1986.

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS

Mikulski was the first woman to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee, the powerful committee responsible for funding government agencies and departments. She chaired the committee from 2012 until this January when Republicans won control of the Senate.

EQUAL PAY

Mikulski has long been a champion for equal rights, specifically when it comes for equal pay for women. She has introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act to try to put an end to disparity between women and men.

CRAB CAKE AFICIONADO

Mikulski cites crab cakes as her ideal meal and has a killer recipe handed down from her mother. But don’t worry -- it’s not a family secret. Mikulski spreads the crab cake love and has posted the recipe on her website.

"When I’m not eating delicious crab cakes, I follow what I call a heart healthy diet, which isn’t always easy,” she wrote on her website. “I like parsley, but I like pizza better.”

THE 4'11" SENATOR

Mikulski is quite small compared to some of her Senate colleagues at 4 feet and 11 inches tall. She reportedly once described herself as a “little stealth rocket, a heat-seeking missile, under everybody's radar."

Though small in stature, she is well known as one of the most feisty lawmakers on Capitol Hill.